Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has covered world politics and economics for 30 years, based in Europe, the US, and Latin America. He joined the Telegraph in 1991, serving as Washington correspondent and later Europe correspondent in Brussels. He is now International Business Editor in London. Subscribe to the City Briefing e-mail.

Europe’s Punishment Union

Very quickly, there has been much loose talk about EU fiscal union. What was agreed at 4AM this morning is nothing of the sort.

It is a "Stability Union", as Angel Merkel stated in her Bundestag speech. Chalk and cheese.

"Deeper economic integration" is for one purpose only, to "police" budgets and punish sinners.

It is about "rigorous surveillance" (point 24 of the statement) and "discipline" (25), laws enforcing "balanced budgets" (26), and prior vetting of budgets by EU police before elected parliaments have voted (26).

This certainly makes sense if you want to run a half-baked currency union. As the statement says, EMU’s leaders have learned the lesson of a decade of self-delusion. "Today no government can afford to underestimate the possible impact of public debts or housing bubbles in another eurozone country on its own economy."

But none of this is fiscal union. There is no joint bond issuance, no move to an EU treasury, no joint budgets with shared taxation and spending, no debt pooling, and no system of permanent fiscal transfers. Nor can there be without breaching a specific prohibition by Germany's top court, a prohibition that could be overcome only by changing the Grundgesetz and holding a referendum.

(Yes, you could argue that leveraging the EFSF bail-out fund to €1 trillion with "first loss" insurance of Club Med debt implies a massive German-Dutch-Austrian-Finnish-Estonian-Slovak transfer one day to the South. But again, is that really a fiscal union? Mrs Merkel says this money will never be needed because the mere pledge will restore market confidence.)

As Sir John Major wrote this morning in the FT, this does not solve EMU’s fundamental problem, which is the 30pc gap in competitiveness between North and South, and Germany’s colossal intra-EMU trade surplus at the expense of Club Med deficit states.

It is therefore unlikely to succeed. It means that Italy, Spain, Portugal, et al must close the gap with Germany by austerity alone, risking a Fisherite debt deflation spiral. As I have written many times, this is a destructive and intellectually incoherent policy, akin to the 1930s Gold Standard. It risks conjuring the very demons that Mrs Merkel warns against.

Sir John is less categorical, but the message is the same. Europe will have to evolve into a fiscal union to make the system work, but that would be inherently undemocratic without a genuine European government, parliament, and civic union. Such a supra-national union cannot enjoy democratic vitality because there is no European demos, or shared view of the world, or indeed any popular support for such a revolutionary step. Such a union would castrate historic national parliaments, to the advantage of whom?

So this "solution" leads ineluctably to an authoritarian regime. Bad situation.

The alternative is to break monetary union into viable parts, preferably with the withdrawal of greater Germania from the euro. This is off the table.

So, EMU break-up is Verboten, fiscal union is Verboten, full mobilization of the ECB – either to lift the South off the reefs through reflation, or to back-stop the system as a lender-of-last resort – is Verboten. Germany will have none of it.

Instead we have the summit conclusions – EUCO 116/11 of October 27 2011 – and a great deal of coercion.